tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post7772836162007345445..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE STUDY OF SOCIETY PART SEVENRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-64708241907106124982010-10-11T07:57:02.818-04:002010-10-11T07:57:02.818-04:00Hidden facts revealed!
Assembly Line Worker Jo...Hidden facts revealed! <br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.samplejobdescriptions.org/assembly-line-worker.html" rel="nofollow">Assembly Line Worker Job Description</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-71976605573516879962010-10-10T17:42:00.370-04:002010-10-10T17:42:00.370-04:00Like JP, I'm still a bit unclear on how "...Like JP, I'm still a bit unclear on how "deeply" ideology pervades the concept of unemployment. Are you saying that it is impossible even for careful individuals to keep all the normative connotations of unemployment at bay and just focus on what it is actually measuring, or just that society as a whole cannot sever the concept from its normative connotations? <br /><br />I realize the unemployment example is just supposed to show, in microcosm, how the overlapping network of putatively scientific concepts that comprise the dominant ideology are laden with substantive political connotations, so I guess my question is really to what extent are discrete individuals capable of severing the normative connotations of an ideology's conceptualization of reality so that - I can feel that this way of putting it is going to make me sound like a prat - only the facts remain.Angushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11692562500798180624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-47529061755345319112010-10-10T12:58:25.046-04:002010-10-10T12:58:25.046-04:00You write that simply to use the concept of 'u...You write that simply to use the concept of 'unemployment' is to somehow buy into an ideology, and that this shows how there cannot be a neutral account of society.<br /><br />Is this correct? If so, I fail to see the argument here. If I give the unemployment-rate I am saying that, in a certain society, X number of people meet a certain proxy-standard for 'unemployed'. Saying this does not commit me to the claim that this measure applies to all societies, that it is somehow natural or given, or even to the claim that the relevant proxy is a good measure of unemployment.<br /><br />Could you say a bit more about the problem with regards to objectivity or neutrality?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13068383050573818153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-10564776588947729022010-10-10T08:35:52.649-04:002010-10-10T08:35:52.649-04:00Good show. There have been a number of such film ...Good show. There have been a number of such film images, especially in old films from the 20s and 30s. A great send-up of the capitalist workplace [and of unions] is the marvelous Peter Sellars comedy, I'M ALL RIGHT JACK.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-90879928410811701182010-10-10T08:06:52.694-04:002010-10-10T08:06:52.694-04:00Another great film depiction of what you describe ...Another great film depiction of what you describe is in the classic silent film Metropolis. An early scene in there depicts workers at a large machine moving with a rhythm and order that makes them appear as part of the machine itself, rather than human beings operating a machine.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11411530873269401673noreply@blogger.com